D.K. Seth, J. - (1.) THIS appeal is directed against the order dated 30th July. 1997 passed by the learned Chief Judge. City Civil Court. Calcutta In Revocation Case No. 43 of 1988 revoking the probate granted in Prohate Case No. 100 of 1986. Submission on behalf of the appellant: Learned Counsel for the appellant points out that there was no material to show that the respondent/applicant No. 1 was the legally married wife of the testator. According to him, the Probate Court, while deciding the application for revocation under Section 263 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, cannot go into the question as to whether she is the legally married wife of the testator or not. In any event, the learned Trial Court had not conclusively found that she was the legally married wife. On the other hand, it was recorded that the possibility of her being the legally married wife cannot be ruled out Therefore, there is no conclusive finding on the basis whereof the probate can be revoked. Unless it is found that she was the legally married wife, the respondents/ applicants No. 2, 3 and 4 cannot claim any locus standi. As such, absence of citation in this case would not attract the mischief provided under Section 263 of the Indian Succession Act. He further contends that there was no material on the basis whereof it came to the conclusion that there was absence of citation and that there were interested parties on whom citation ought to have been issued and that the respondents/ applicants were such parties. Therefore, the order appealed against cannot be sustained and should be set aside. Submission on behalf of the respondents:
(2.) LEARNED Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, contends that the scope of the proceeding under Section 263 of the Indian Succession Act is limited to the examination of the relevant points on which the probate could be revoked. In the present case, it appears from the Will itself that her existence is admitted, though as concubine, however, not admitted by the respondents. On the other hand, the issues are shown to be those of the testator in the birth certificates granted by the Calcutta Municipal Corporation and in the ration cards. Therefore, it cannot be denied that those respondents No. 2, 3 and 4 are children of the testator, which, however, is not admitted by the appellant. It appears that these respondents as widow and children of the testator are entitled to inherit or succeed to the estate of the testator and as such are entitled to citation. Therefore, the court has rightly found absence of citation. At the same time, though the court did not deal with the question of suppression of fact, namely, the existence of the respondents No. 1,2, 3 and 4. yet these are sufficient factors on which probate has been rightly revoked. Therefore, the appeal should be dismissed. We have heard the learned Counsel for the respective parties at length. Scope of Section 263 Succession Act:
(3.) THE matter arises out of an application for revocation of grant of probate under Section 263 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925. Section 263 provides for revocation or annulment of the grant of probate or letters of administration for just cause. Just cause has been explained to deem to exist where "(a) the proceedings to obtain the grant were defective in substance; or (b) the grant was obtained fraudulently by making a false suggestion, or by concealing from the Court something material to the case; or (c) the grant was obtained by means of an untrue allegation of a fact essential in point of law to justify the grant, though such allegation was made in ignorance or inadvertently; or....". It also provides for the following illustrations : "(i) The Court by which the grant was made had no jurisdiction, (ii) The grant was made without citing parties who ought to have been cited, (iii) The Will of which probate was obtained was forged or revoked....". 4.1. In order to succeed in an application for revocation of the grant of probate, as in the present case, the tests laid down in Section 263 as quoted above, one or the other is to be satisfied. Satisfaction of any one of the tests would be a just cause. It is not necessary that more or all the tests are to be satisfied. In the facts and circumstances of this case, we are required to examine as to whether this case satisfied any one or more of the tests laid down above. Whether the applicants can apply for revocation :;